bkcooper

11 ms·

91.
by bkcooper 12y ago
I'd like to see more about how everybody is expected to stop learning after that, unless they're looking for more degrees . . . . Who has this expectation? To me your perspective is weird because it suggests that if you're
92.
by bkcooper 12y ago
The article makes some interesting points, but overall I don't find it terribly convincing. --- While they do comment that retractions are just the most extreme version of this problem, the retraction rate of .02% they mention near the
93.
by bkcooper 12y ago
In the first two examples, I don't see how Oppenheimer failed to be "courageous." He disagreed with Dirac! He made technically accurate points that proved not to be rebuttals after all. This isn't about not following his
94.
by bkcooper 12y ago
I think you are confusing "the best team winning" with everybody knowing who is going to win a priori. If the game goes to the best player with near certainty, then unless there's a lot of noise in determining the best play
95.
by bkcooper 12y ago
I agree with the overall tenor of the comments: this wasn't a very good article. Much of what he's saying is well known to quantitatively minded fans of sport, and the presumption that the game has failed if it doesn't identi
96.
by bkcooper 12y ago
I understand all of this, and yes, plainly in the case of ESP cheating seems much more likely than genuine ESP. My point is that there's nothing in the overall process to prevent this sort of subversion: * do an experiment; * get resul
97.
by bkcooper 12y ago
No, clearly the underlying mechanism that he describes is good. However, as he admits in the passage I quote, he is so unconvinced by the possibility of ESP that no tests of this sort could ever convince him. The issue isn't just that
98.
by bkcooper 12y ago
It's certainly worth looking at. I personally find Jaynes's acerbic commentary entertaining, although I imagine it grates for many. His overall view of probability is satisfyingly coherent, but I do not consider myself sufficientl